DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.7416#0185
175
and Alexandria, though full as authentic as those which he has col-
lected with so much labor from the Byzantine luminaries of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.'
212. A conclusion directly contrary to that of this ingenious
gentleman was drawn by several learned writers of antiquity, from
the confusion in which the traditions of early times were involved:
instead of turning history into mythology, they turned mythology
into history ; and inferred that, because some of the objects of
public worship had been mortal men, they had all been equally so;
for which purpose, they rejected the authority of the mysteries ;
where the various gradations of gods, da-mons, and heroes, with
all the metaphysical distinctions of emanated, personified, and ca-
nonised beings, were taught ;*and instead of them, brought out the
old allegorical genealogies in a new dress, under pretence of their
having been transcribed from authentic historical monuments of
extreme antiquity found in some remote country.
213. Euhemcrus, a Messenian employed under Cassander king
of Macedonia, seems to have been the first who attempted this
kind of fraud. Having been sent into the Eastern Ocean with
some commission, he pretended to have found engraven upon a
column in an ancient temple in the island of Panchsea, a genealo-
gical account of a family, that had once reigned there; in which
were comprised the principal deities then worshipped by the
Greeks.3 The theory, which he formed from this pretended dis-
1 See Bryant on Ancient Mythology.
1 Ilcpi fxtiv out/ Ttjiv fwffruttov, ef ols ras fj.tyta*ras cpupaffeis Kat Ziatpaacis XafHeiv (art
ttji irepi Sai/xwuy a\t]0eias, ciottojuh fUU KfloSw, Ka.0' 'HpoSaray. Plutarch, de Orac.
Delect. ]> -1 17.
3 Euseb. Prsep. Evang. lib. ii. c. ?.
•—Me7t*\as fJLW Tip adetp Acui KKtaiaoas avoiynvras, KXi €^av6puTTttoyTi ra deia, Aafi-
upav Sc rots Emintpov tou Wlto-ayviav (pwaK-.o-fiots TrappTjaiaf 5i5oiras. is owns avrrypaipa
auvOtts airta-rov i;ai avvrapicrov nuBaKoyias, ira-rav afleonj.a Ka.TaaK^a.viiuat ttjs oikov-
fiei^js, runs vd/uFoimvovs Qtovs iramas ifia\u; 6m- paitiwv eis ovofiaia o rparriyuv "at
flovvapxw fin fiaai\iu>v ws 5ij iraAai yeyovoruiv, fv 5e tli^ais ypafi.pLO.ri xpua0,s
ypafifitHwi/, eis ourt fiapflapos oviets, ovre EAAtji/, aXAa fiuvos Zmtiitpus, us (oiKf,
irAwsas as rovs infia.ij.o9i yns ytyovoras, pi-qSt ovras Tlayxaiovs Kai Tptipi'Atovs, (vtctu-
X^kci. Plutarch, de Is. ct Osir.
and Alexandria, though full as authentic as those which he has col-
lected with so much labor from the Byzantine luminaries of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.'
212. A conclusion directly contrary to that of this ingenious
gentleman was drawn by several learned writers of antiquity, from
the confusion in which the traditions of early times were involved:
instead of turning history into mythology, they turned mythology
into history ; and inferred that, because some of the objects of
public worship had been mortal men, they had all been equally so;
for which purpose, they rejected the authority of the mysteries ;
where the various gradations of gods, da-mons, and heroes, with
all the metaphysical distinctions of emanated, personified, and ca-
nonised beings, were taught ;*and instead of them, brought out the
old allegorical genealogies in a new dress, under pretence of their
having been transcribed from authentic historical monuments of
extreme antiquity found in some remote country.
213. Euhemcrus, a Messenian employed under Cassander king
of Macedonia, seems to have been the first who attempted this
kind of fraud. Having been sent into the Eastern Ocean with
some commission, he pretended to have found engraven upon a
column in an ancient temple in the island of Panchsea, a genealo-
gical account of a family, that had once reigned there; in which
were comprised the principal deities then worshipped by the
Greeks.3 The theory, which he formed from this pretended dis-
1 See Bryant on Ancient Mythology.
1 Ilcpi fxtiv out/ Ttjiv fwffruttov, ef ols ras fj.tyta*ras cpupaffeis Kat Ziatpaacis XafHeiv (art
ttji irepi Sai/xwuy a\t]0eias, ciottojuh fUU KfloSw, Ka.0' 'HpoSaray. Plutarch, de Orac.
Delect. ]> -1 17.
3 Euseb. Prsep. Evang. lib. ii. c. ?.
•—Me7t*\as fJLW Tip adetp Acui KKtaiaoas avoiynvras, KXi €^av6puTTttoyTi ra deia, Aafi-
upav Sc rots Emintpov tou Wlto-ayviav (pwaK-.o-fiots TrappTjaiaf 5i5oiras. is owns avrrypaipa
auvOtts airta-rov i;ai avvrapicrov nuBaKoyias, ira-rav afleonj.a Ka.TaaK^a.viiuat ttjs oikov-
fiei^js, runs vd/uFoimvovs Qtovs iramas ifia\u; 6m- paitiwv eis ovofiaia o rparriyuv "at
flovvapxw fin fiaai\iu>v ws 5ij iraAai yeyovoruiv, fv 5e tli^ais ypafi.pLO.ri xpua0,s
ypafifitHwi/, eis ourt fiapflapos oviets, ovre EAAtji/, aXAa fiuvos Zmtiitpus, us (oiKf,
irAwsas as rovs infia.ij.o9i yns ytyovoras, pi-qSt ovras Tlayxaiovs Kai Tptipi'Atovs, (vtctu-
X^kci. Plutarch, de Is. ct Osir.